Man who hacked Scarlett Johansson’s e-mail sentenced to 10 years

Christopher Chaney, who had pled guilty this year, heads to federal prison.

If the ethics of hacking celebrities’ e-mail accounts doesn't stop you from doing it, perhaps a decade-long jail sentence will.

On Monday, a Florida man found guilty of gaining access to 50 e-mail accounts—including those of Scarlett Johansson, Mila Kunis, Renee Olstead, and others—was sentenced on federal charges to 10 years in jail. Chaney pled guilty to nine counts of "aggravated identity theft," "wiretapping," and other crimes earlier this year.

The judge in the case was S. James Otero, who also ordered Christopher Chaney to pay over $66,000 restitution. Otero said the defendant’s actions constituted a “callous disregard to the victims.”

Ars detailed his tactics—which mostly consisted of getting the password reset and having copies mirrored to another e-mail account—back in March 2012.

“Illegal wiretapping gave Mr. Chaney access to every e-mail sent to more than four dozen victims, and allowed him to view their most personal information,” said United States Attorney André Birotte Jr., in a statement.

“Mr. Chaney is responsible for causing dozens of illegally obtained, private photographs to be posted on the Internet, where they were available for all to see. This case is a sobering reminder that cybercrime poses a very real threat to every American, and everyone should take steps to safeguard their identities and personal information on the Internet.”

Strange that breaking into email is worthy of a 10 year sentence, but the government can demand providers to hand over your email no questions asked.

Is it because of the scope of the break in, 48 people, as in the sentence would be lighter if it was only one victim?

It's unclear whether this sentence is due to the number of counts, though that's likely.

Also, you might want to accept the idea that there do exist actions that the government can take (preferably with due process) against you that private citizens aren't necessarily free to. Additionally, if any government employee took your emails and was then caught leaking them online, I'm pretty sure they'd run into some legal issues as well.

What about real criminals who get off scott free? I can think of quite a few crooks in the financial markets just in the past few years. They screwed over everyone and are now sipping umbrella drinks on Maui. Then there's US Gov reading EVERYONE's e-mail without a warrant. I guess it's not wiretapping if a gov like the US's says it isn't. And it is if they say it is.

What about real criminals who get off scott free? I can think of quite a few crooks in the financial markets just in the past few years. They screwed over everyone and are now sipping umbrella drinks on Maui. Then there's US Gov reading EVERYONE's e-mail without a warrant. I guess it's not wiretapping if a gov like the US's says it isn't. And it is if they say it is.

This guy is a "real criminal." And yes, those other criminals should have been nailed as well.

You may want to grow up, though, and realize that just because something is easy doesn't make it legal. Don't want to pay taxes anymore? Just enter zero for your income when you file. Pay no taxes. So easy!

What about real criminals who get off scott free? I can think of quite a few crooks in the financial markets just in the past few years. They screwed over everyone and are now sipping umbrella drinks on Maui. Then there's US Gov reading EVERYONE's e-mail without a warrant. I guess it's not wiretapping if a gov like the US's says it isn't. And it is if they say it is.

This sentence is fucking overkill. No way should someone go to jail for that long over pixels. I could understand if he was able to transfer lots of money or something akin to real theft, but this is just...wow.

This sentencing is a joke on every level. I think pedophiles have gotten easier sentences....

EDIT: I responded not reading the whole story, missed the part where he was a repeat offender etc. But still, 10 years seems to me a long time for this considering other areas of crime are far worse.

I think it is prosecuterial activism to charge someone with identity theft for clicking a password reset button on an account they don't own.

It sounds like this guy had a really bad lawyer and the prosecutors were really really motivated to throw every charge they could at him, regardless of whether or not they had merit.

He did break the law and he should go to jail, but the punishment in this case does not fit the crime, and the charges do not match the events as they have been described here.

They probably threatened him with 300 years in jail so that he would plead guilty and get 10. The Constitution of the United States really is getting raped by the so called "Department of Justice" these days.

This sentence is fucking overkill. No way should someone go to jail for that long over pixels. I could understand if he was able to transfer lots of money or something akin to real theft, but this is just...wow.

This sentencing is a joke on every level. I think pedophiles have gotten easier sentences....

EDIT: I responded not reading the whole story, missed the part where he was a repeat offender etc. But still, 10 years seems to me a long time for this considering other areas of crime are far worse.

Hmmm, in my neck of the woods, three felonies — say, stealing a $500 bicycle plus a couple of possession charges — is automatic life.

Methinks you lead a sheltered life. Maybe it'd be good to review what society needs to hang together.

What about real criminals who get off scott free? I can think of quite a few crooks in the financial markets just in the past few years. They screwed over everyone and are now sipping umbrella drinks on Maui. Then there's US Gov reading EVERYONE's e-mail without a warrant. I guess it's not wiretapping if a gov like the US's says it isn't. And it is if they say it is.

Go to bank

Point gun at teller

Get money

That is worth 10 years in jail? But why? It's so eeeeasy??!

(What a stupid comment)

As poorly considered a comment as it was, your counter example is worse. Equating armed robbery with what Mr. Chaney did is absurd.

I'm not saying 10 years is what I might have sentenced him with but this is a little more then just getting into someones email.

I think that sharing someone's private nude photos without their consent should be classified as a form of sexual assault. But, my understanding is that it he wasn't charged with that, and it generally isn't even a crime.

So, what he did was pretty reprehensible, but since he was charged with reading people's email, I'm not even convinced that jail time is appropriate. (And sharing someone's private nude photos should be a crime, if it isn't already.)

I don't mean to sound insensitive to any victims but frankly if you don't want nude photos of yourself on the internet, then don't put nude photos of yourself on the internet. Seriously, the e-mail is PART of the internet. Once it has been uploaded/transferred, there is no going back.

While it is wrong what he did from a privacy invasion standpoint I don't see how Mrs. Johansson's message was relevant at all, maybe she should have thought more clearly before putting compromising photos of herself online. The same goes for male politicians who think it is cool to transfer around pictures of their penises thinking it isn't going to come back to haunt them.

Not that I think it should be legal, or that no punishment is necessary, and also not that celebrities don't have rights, but I'm curious how much time he would receive if he had hacked MY account and maybe a bunch of my friends but not celebrities?

I know he has been charged with more than just hacking some email accounts, but what's almost as sick as some of his actions is the idea that just because a celebrity is involved, the issue is somehow worse that the common citizen being the victim; the common citizen should be heralded just as much.

A few weeks ago, when an NFL player killed himself and his soon-to-be-a-mother girlfriend, the mass media made him into some kind of martyr for mental illness and somehow managed to downplay the fact that he murdered someone.

Why someone commits crime, especially due to mental illness, is important, but the attention we give to issues like this shouldn't be overshadowed by a celebrity being affected.

After all, when Sony PS Online got hacked we heard about how it affected "customers". Had there been a celebrity involved, we would have heard, "Lebron gets his Sony account hacked....(oh, yeah and so do millions of others.".

If that amazes you, you'd be very surprised at the length of sentence you can get by going around houses on your block, rooting for hidden keys by the front or back door, and checking out how your neighbors arrange their furniture.

Our jails are already overcrowded to say the least. And, the cost of each inmate per year is astronomical. Community service, a big fine, and a restriction from using the Internet (I know,hard to verify), would have been more appropriate.

Our jails are already overcrowded to say the least. And, the cost of each inmate per year is astronomical. Community service, a big fine, and a restriction from using the Internet (I know,hard to verify), would have been more appropriate.

Alternately, release a couple potheads to make space for this guy.

Seems it's necessary, as a deterrent, because some people (looks upthread) don't seem to even realize what he did is wrong.

The guy who guessed Sarah Palin's secret question answers on her personal Yahoo account got a year of prison and three years of probation.

The guy who physically trespassed into the office of a US senator and attempted to install a wiretap got three years probation, 100 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine.

Rupert Murdoch had to apologize.

I guess the lesson for hackers is to be political, be a minion, or best of all, have minions.

"physically tespassed into the office of a US senator"

Ok I have to call bullshit here. Senators hold a public office, and the word "public" also applies to the actual PHYSICAL office itself. If you are a constituent of that senator you have every right to enter it. I don't see why he'd need to wiretap though, the freedom of information act should apply to information distributed/received by a public official.